He signed Landry Fields....... thats a pretty big zit on an otherwise pretty cute girl at the moment. Ujiri doesnt want to risk scarring with a pop so for the moment has appliest toothpaste over it and is waiting for it to heal naturally via we package his ass ot of town in a coming deal.

Fields was the hot new girl when he was a rookie. Knicks changed and so did his role. So, Colangelo took a gamble on a change of scenery. Year one hasn't done much. But, see what year two might bring. I really could not give less of a fuck about what he's getting paid.

If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

Fields was the hot new girl when he was a rookie. Knicks changed and so did his role. So, Colangelo took a gamble on a change of scenery. Year one hasn't done much. But, see what year two might bring. I really could not give less of a fuck about what he's getting paid.

The signing wasn't bad, the amount of money was. Change of scenery and role can work wonders, but no need to overpay that much.

From a point of simplicity the option to not sign a RFA (in this case Fields) is always there.

He in no way HAD TO overpay. He chose to because he felt in some way doing so Fields was worth it (whether it was to block a Nash deal in NY, or because he felt Fields as a player was worth it, or both).

From a point of simplicity the option to not sign a RFA (in this case Fields) is always there.

He in no way HAD TO overpay. He chose to because he felt in some way doing so Fields was worth it (whether it was to block a Nash deal in NY, or because he felt Fields as a player was worth it, or both).

Yes, you have to. Don't tell me that you don't.

If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

From a point of simplicity the option to not sign a RFA (in this case Fields) is always there.

He in no way HAD TO overpay. He chose to because he felt in some way doing so Fields was worth it (whether it was to block a Nash deal in NY, or because he felt Fields as a player was worth it, or both).

You're not addressing the point that was made. You refer to the choice to go after a RFA or not, but the post was saying that if you choose to go after a RFA, you have to overpay, or "there's just no point" (because the current team will match).

You always seem to pick that one insignificant detail and try to use that to discredit a point. Considering there is a league minimum, this was obviously an exaggeration. The point still stands, to prevent a sign and trade of Nash to the Knicks, all you needed was his signature, 6.5 Million a year for someone about to sit on the knicks bench wasn't necessary anyway you slice it.

You don't have to pay $6.5M to a guy coming off a season where he shot 25.6% for the 3PT line and 56% from the Free Throw line.

If you are making this move to block the Steve Nash sign and trade, you don't need a specific amount to get it done, any amount would be sufficient. Based on Fields production, he was likely worth between $2M-$3M per season, so $4M would have been an acceptable 'over-pay', but $6.5M was just Colangelo-esque.

You always seem to pick that one insignificant detail and try to use that to discredit a point. Considering there is a league minimum, this was obviously an exaggeration. The point still stands, to prevent a sign and trade of Nash to the Knicks, all you needed was his signature, 6.5 Million a year for someone about to sit on the knicks bench wasn't necessary anyway you slice it.

The point is, you can pick whatever number you want, but if he doesn't sign it, the GM wastes his time and doesn't accomplish the goal, whether you agree with that goal or not.

The point is, you can pick whatever number you want, but if he doesn't sign it, the GM wastes his time and doesn't accomplish the goal, whether you agree with that goal or not.

You're still missing the point, anything at fair value, he would have signed, the concept of overpaying is to dissuade the team to match, in the case of fields it wouldn't matter if they matched, in fact it would have been better for us to match. Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million ? because unless that's what you're saying you are not saying anything at all, and are just arguing for the sake of arguying.

You're still missing the point, anything at fair value, he would have signed, the concept of overpaying is to dissuade the team to match, in the case of fields it wouldn't matter if they matched, in fact it would have been better for us to match. Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million ? because unless that's what you're saying you are not saying anything at all, and are just arguing for the sake of arguying.

I don't know that it makes any sense at all to debate with someone that uses the lame "just arguing for the sake of arguying" deflection, but,................

When you speak of "in fact it would have been better for us to match", there is no "fact" about it, just your opinion, aided by 20/20 hindsight it would seem. In any event, whether you agree with the goal or not, you assume that the only reason he was offered that deal was to dissuade NY from signing Nash. Unless you can get into BC's head, you have no idea whether or not he also saw Fields as an answer to filling the SF spot, which was a big need at that time. A very good argument could be made that BC was trying to kill two birds with one stone. As far as you're "Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million", I have no idea, and neither do you, but the simple concept that was stated by LBF, and some people want to argue about (hmmmmm, for the sake of arguing?), is that almost without fail, a GM has to overpay to get a RFA, to which there is no argument. Who is arguing to argue?